Commenting Rules

Readers are welcome to post comments on the material posted here, but some simple rules apply:

No trolls allowed

I reserve the right to refuse comments.

This site is meant to express my point of view. If you are looking for a soapbox to promote your own views, create your own website or blog site.

Comments should be brief (preferably under 100 words), polite, constructive and informed.

Comments which are simply attacks on myself, or are done in bad taste, or use rude language, or are possibly defamatory will not be posted.

You must state your full name to have your comments posted.

I may reply to some of your comments but will not be able to respond to all.

If you are happy to abide by these rules, then by all means, send in your comments. Happy writing!

On the Australian Marriage Plebiscite

Aug 31, 2016

Whether a national plebiscite on the redefinition of marriage in Australia ever takes place or not is now up in the air. The Senate may well block the move, as activists and leftist political parties are worried about how such a vote might go. They now want to again use Parliament to keep pushing for their radical plans, so at this point a plebiscite to be held sometime early next year is no certainty.

Nonetheless we must keep involved in the battle, and keep making the case for why traditional marriage is worth defending. Whatever means the activists use, we must always stand for what is right, and always defend the greatest social institution ever known to man.

Of course the homosexual activists will do anything to bring in sham marriage, and will oppose anyone or anything that might deter this. That is why the homosexual activists, and their Labor and Greens supporters are now running scared on a plebiscite, and that is why four more bills were introduced into Parliament as the 45th sitting opened yesterday.

Because the Parliament has stood firm up until now, the activists then began speaking about “the people” and things like a marriage plebiscite or referendum. They insisted that the majority of Australians want to change the Marriage Act and that such change was inevitable.

But as it becomes more and more clear that the majority of Australians do not actually support the radical overhaul of marriage, and the negative effects this will have on children, they are now doing everything they can to deny the Australian people the right to vote on such an important issue.

They think the masses are just too dumb or too ignorant to be allowed to vote on something this revolutionary, and they want just a handful of politicians to again decide on this. So they are making lame excuses about how a plebiscite will harm homosexuals, or it is just an expensive opinion poll, and so on.

But the activists sure did not talk this way when they applauded a similar means used in Ireland recently to ram through homosexual marriage. And a plebiscite costing $160 million – as estimated by the Australian Electoral Commission – is a mere 0.04 per cent of the total Federal government budget of $400 billion.

The anti-democratic nature of the activists is on full display here. They fear the people. They dislike the people. They want their brave new world created by force of law, with an activist State forcing the masses to do the bidding of the homosexual activists.

This is the stuff of totalitarians, not a free people. In a democracy such as Australia the people should have the freedom to say what they like on such vital issues which impact all of us, and they should certainly have the right to vote on such matters if need be.

A few home truths need to be repeated here in the face of all this. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and for good reason. Australian law has always supported the true understanding of marriage, as has almost every culture throughout human history. It has only been in the past decade or two that there have been these incredible moves to redefine it out of existence to placate a very small and vocal minority group.

Marriage has been seen as the ultimate social institution, and one that protects the next generation. If children had nothing to do with marriage then governments would have no reason to be interested in marriage. But when the wellbeing of the next generation is at stake, then governments have an obligation to promote the one known family structure that children do best in: families bound by heterosexual marriage.

Other relationships are just that – relationships. Homosexual couples already have all the same freedoms and rights as do heterosexual couples. Redefining the social institution of marriage is not necessary, and in fact will undermine the very rationale for marriage.

But all this I have argued for at length with copious amounts of documentation in various books and articles. Here are just four articles which summarise in outline and bullet-point form the arguments against homosexual marriage. Please make use of these truths as you stand up for marriage:

Let me deal with a few other matters here. People often ask me if I believe we will one day lose, and the definition of marriage will change. My reply usually goes something like this: Nothing is inevitable, especially when God’s people get serious about being salt and light in their culture, and work hard and pray hard to preserve God’s institutions of marriage and family.

The old saying by Edmund Burke about evil occurring when good people do nothing is certainly applicable here. Moreover, there never is a right to do that which is wrong. If homosexual marriage one day becomes the law of the land in Australia that really changes nothing.

Real marriage will still always be between a man and a woman. And even if the attack on marriage succeeds, that is not the end of the story. While it is harder to undo a bad law, those concerned about marriage and family and the wellbeing of children will continue to work for real marriage, and oppose its counterfeit with all its harmful fallout.

I have sought to do this all along. I have already written three books and hundreds of articles on the homosexual lobby’s attempt to redefine marriage and radically transform society. I have been working on this for decades and I will continue to work on this, regardless of what law changes may occur in the near future.

The wellbeing of our children, the social good, and the nature of true marriage can never be abandoned. We must always fight for that which is right. Nothing is a foregone conclusion. A few centuries ago most people thought that slavery was a foregone conclusion, an inevitability that would never change.

But courageous people like Wilberforce thought otherwise, and worked with all their might to challenge this great social evil. And in the end they prevailed. Right now we have managed to protect marriage, and thus protect society, and especially our children.

But the other side is relentless as I mentioned, and they will neither sleep nor eat till they have achieved their nefarious goals. They will persevere and simply hope that we tire too easily and just give up. They assume they will win soon enough.

All the more reason for us to redouble our efforts, redouble our prayers, and redouble our concern for this nation and its people. Marriage is a most important social institution which is well worth fighting for. So too is the wellbeing of our children and grandchildren.

[1234 words]

Share:

13 Responses to On the Australian Marriage Plebiscite

God bless Ian Powell (I hope I got his name right) for standing up against Bill Shorten. I noticed Mr Shorten did not answer the question, obviously because he knew how bad it would look. Of course the Labor Party has wheeled out Michael Kirby again hoping that we will have forgotten that his legal opinion is that pretty much anything should be marriage. A living example that the slippery slope argument is legally correct once marriage is redefined.

I think it is time the Labor Party stopped playing politics with morality. We know the argument that homosexuals are born that way is not true. We know the claim that it won’t affect anyone else is not true. We know the argument that it won’t lead to other claims for marriage redefinition is not true. We know the claim that homosexual relationships are equal to biological ones is not true. People should be rejecting this if for no other reason than laws must be based on the truth not demonstrably false claims.

Homosexual relationships are in fact the opposite of marriage, not its equal because they tear apart biological relationships and undermine their standing under the law and negate children’s rights and more.

Shorten lied to the priest. He said during the election campaign that if we did not support his push for SSM we were a homophobe. He said nothing about people of faith being homophobic.

I think the time has come that all those individuals and organisations that are opposing SSM should get together for a couple of days to plan strategy so that we are all reading from the same page. We need to frame the issues and make specific comments ad infinitum and pray that drip feeding the truth will win the day. We need to drip feed the truth to all MPs on a regular basis.

The evil is just flabbergasting. Mrs Freeman my Sunday School teacher rolling over in her grave.
But Jesus predicted this.
Now godly men have appointed trolls and blogs dedicated solely to oppose them by name.
I’ve seen your trolls.
I’m afraid this is beyond politics.
Prayer, fasting ministers working together.
In Wilberforce day, there was probably some decency left and biblical foundation?
Now the foundations are destroyed.
Allah and Budda are fine alternatives.
I saw Churchill and FDR sitting together in George Washington’s church pew for prayer.
Now try getting a Christian speaker into a public school assembly.

Please don’t tell me the ministers are not willing to fight for this hill. That would be too depressing. At least catholics stand for something. And in the end, when history is written, they’re probably going to make fools of us all and be proven right about contraception.

The depth of debate from the left on these issues is nothing but vulgar name calling and claims of bigotry. Let the people SPEAK. These parliamentarians claim they have been voted in to speak on our behalf – but then when we want our voice heard we’re nothing but stupid bigots and can’t be trusted. Maybe we’d trust the parliament if they actually followed through with their stated promises!!

@Michael Watts: “Take the phrase “marriage equality” and directly refute it.”
Couldn’t agree more! They already have equality. They have the EXACT same rights as I, and all Ozzies have with respect to marriage.

The argument used by the “here today and gone tomorrow” politicians, like David Cameron in Britain is that gays will actually strengthen the ailing institution of marriage. The number of actual same sex marriages that have been formed in Britain since March 2014 when they were first legalised has been around 7000, i,e., 28000 gays. This equals, 1.4% of entire gay population and 0.022% of entire UK population. So on any scale of reckoning it is not marriage per se that the gaystapo want. What they want is the licence to trash marriage, like the prostitute in the judgement of Solomon who would have preferred to have a baby cut in half rather than the real mother to have her child. What they want is the licence to teach children about “different families” . What they want is the right to haul any teacher, parent, governor or student into court if they do not accept gay marriage. Same sex marriage is the jewel in the crown, the Queen chess piece that they have capture in order to win the game. And of course having appropriated ownership of marriage, they are now free to redefine it so that monogamy and faithfulness are no longer necessary.
And yet David Cameron said the the gays would come over the hill like the cavalry and rescue marriage from further disintegration. Soon the licence will be extended to the polygamists, polyamorists, trannies of all shades, those in incestuous partnerships , those who love their dogs, fridges, themselves or the Sydney Opera House.
It is best when it comes from the horse’s mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt6AGxc7LBM

Now listen to her apologising for supporting Section 28 which was a clause, introduced in 1988, prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality in schools. She is apologising for the fact that the Conservative Party frustrated gay teachers and useful idiots from grooming children on an industrial scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLqt–EjgQY

The Australian people, like the British just want to get on with their lives. They have never before had to grapple with queer theory, ideology or theology. But they had better stop and consider it now as a greater threat to their nation than Japanese invasion in WW11.

A little but important point: Since four more bills were introduced to redefine marriage at the opening of Parliament’s 45th sitting, you can chalk up 20 failed attempts at this since 2004. It fails because it itself is a failure of logic.

The stalling of the plebiscite is actually an opportunity – it give us more time to wake the population to the fact that this is more than just a discussion about a legal term. It will also likely be more time for the intolerant character of those who violently oppose natural marriage to show the wider public more examples of the type of society they will vote in if they support a redefinition.

This is also an opportunity for us to unite and gather momentum – wake up and act church ye sleeping giant! This is the type of atmosphere from which revivals explode – let us be the generation that sparked this. Great South Land Of The Holy Spirit – Don’t just be satisfied with sorting out marriage. SORT IT ALL OUT.

About CultureWatch

We live in an age where we see evidence of cultural decline, the erosion of values, the decline of civility, the denial of truth and the elevation of unreason. Many people are asking, “Where is our culture heading?” This website is devoted to exploring the major cultural, social and political issues of the day. It offers reflection and commentary drawing upon the wealth of wisdom found in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It offers reflective and incisive commentary on a wide range of issues, helping to sort through the maze of competing opinions, worldviews, ideologies and value systems. It will discuss critically and soberly where our culture is heading. Happy reading!